Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1887-06-10
> Weekly Intslhesnoer
= cal,caSter Jrtteiltgeiun
LANCASTER. JUNE 10. iss7.
Judging the Law.


4 n Jury in the case of Editor Hoffer
11lned 70 construe the law as the court
~ Il 70 them, and in our judgment
Inn6ered wise and proper verdict in find.
- The editor not guilty of criminal
ol1ouse, in the publication of libelous
nEeicle in his newspaper without his knowl. |
o1ge and when he was unable to super.
~ the publication Of bis newspaper
ewing to his illness. 1t is true that this
liability was not proved to the jury, but it
W1s fact, offered to be proved, that be
Was confined to his bed by illness for a
vssk before the publication and for weeks
a9lrward. The court declined to allow
luof Of this to be made, holding the Law
70 b that . publisher is liable to punish
Uent - criminal for q libel printed in
hiS newspaper without his knowledge and
when he il incapable Of attending to the
publication Of his journal.
The court misintcrpreted the law and the
Jury interpreted it correctly. 1t is one il.
lnstration Of the utility of the provision
which makes the jury the judges of the
law and the fact in criminal cases, and
enables them to acquit an innocent de-
1ondant when they think that he has done
nothiDg for which he deserves punishment,
whatever the judges may say to the con-
teazy.
There can be no Goubt in any sensible
mind that the law does not propose to hold
= criminal the intelligent man who is
innocent Of intentional offense. A man
nay be made criminal by ignorance of
law, or BY intoxication, neither of which
conditions of mind are held to excuse an
offender. But the judges cannot add to
this list, the publisher who lies i'll in bed
while his newspaper is printed, however
much they would like to because of their
natural antagonism to the newspaper edi-
tr. The law of libel demands malice as
a e1sentjN-feIuirement in the offense,
ktd6 Jury cannot be convinced that q
NAN lying sick in bed is pervaded with
! malice towards person whom his news.
paper lbels without his knowledge. The
Jury would not believe it of Editor Hoffer
There was no dispute about the publica
sion, and no doubt about the libel, which
there was hardly pretense of defending
The jury had nothing to 60 on in acquit.
ting but the fact, which the court refused
to let them have, that Hoffer had no hand
in the publication. The jury took the
fact by force and arms, and acted upon it
- though it had been proved and in SO
doing demonstrated their sense, and vindi-
Gated the jury as the defender of innocence
against judicial nonsense.
II the suit against Mr.. Hoffer had been
on the civil side of the court, his defense
Of illness would not have saved his pocket :;
because 1t was his business to have man
In charge of his journal capable of con-
Quoting it properly, and he would un.
doubtedly he responsible for all damage
done to anyone in dollars and cents by i'm
proper publications. There is a v sry great
difference between q responsibility for
damages and liability as a criminal and
the day Is going to be far distant when a
man can be sent to Jail because his news.
paper libeled another when he was pros
tEsted by illness. The jury knowing that
b h innocent, will not abuse their con.
sciences to convict him.